Dave wrote:
"Denny" wrote in message
...
Nice graphic, Cecil.. But the thread has drifted beyond recognition..
Part of the original dispute across a couple of threads as I
remember it, was the contention that there is no energy contained
within the reflected wave and therefore no energy contained within the
standing wave, i.e. a mere artifact...
I simply wanted to point out that the standing wave on a line does
contain energy and it is a childishly simple exercise to prove it,
therefore the reflected wave must contain energy...
As far as the questioner, where does the energy go between the
standing wave peaks - oy vey....
If it is a real question - as opposed to a rhetorical device which I
hope was the intent - then the profound ignorance of basic physics is
vastly beyond the limited space I have to go over it... See ANY
introductory level, physics textbook for details...

cheers ... denny

the REAL answer is that the 'standing' wave is a creation of experimenters
100 years ago who didn't have the impedance, current, and voltage
measurement tools we have today, and didn't know of or understand
superposition. 'standing' waves are nothing but a result of superposition
of the forward and reflected waves, they have no physical significance
beyond that. it is worthless to talk about power or energy in them since
they can always be broken down into the component waves which make more
sense to work with.




Actually, the people who thought about waves 100 years ago knew quite
well about superposition, standing waves, etc. Where did you get the
idea that they didn't?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH